§ (1) It shall be the duty of an education authority, with a view to securing so far as practicable that no child or young person resident in their education area who is qualified for attendance at an intermediate or secondary school, and in their opinion shows promise of profiting thereby, shall be debarred therefrom by reason of the expense involved, to grant assistance in the case of any such child or young person by payment of travelling expenses, or of fees, or of the cost of residence in a hostel, or of a bursary or maintenance allowance in lieu of such cost, or other wise, as the authority think fit. And it shall also be lawful for an education authority similarly to assist any duly qualified person resident in their education area to enter or attend a university, or a training college, or a central institution (including classes affiliated thereto), or in special cases any other educational institution approved for the purpose by the Department.
§ (2) It shall further be lawful for an education authority to grant assistance by payment of travelling expenses necessarily incurred in the case of any person resident in their education area in attending continuation classes under a scheme for instruction in such classes as in this Act provided.
§ (3) Any assistance granted under this Section shall be such as the education authority consider proper and necessary, having regard to the circumstances of each case, including the circumstances of the parents.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "the duty of" and to insert instead thereof the words "lawful for."
The history of this Amendment is very peculiar. The Bill as originally drafted contained the words "It shall be lawful for," but upstairs perhaps with a little precipitation and without sufficient consideration, I was induced to accept an Amendment substituting for those words the words "lawful for." By this Amendment I propose to restore the Bill to its original state, I believe the Amendment was proposed by the right hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson) and it was 167 supported in various quarters of the Committee. The difficulty is that you are dealing here with a Clause which gives a discretion to the education authority to provide bursaries, allowances and other financial assistance for deserving pupils, and it permits the exercise of the widest discretion on their part. While I have the strongest sympathy with the motives which animated the Mover of this Amendment, nevertheless after the fullest consideration I have been able to give to the matter it seems to me that the introduction of these words "the duty of" make the Clause self-contradictory. Therefore I propose to restore the words as they were in the original Bill.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI am very much surprised to find the Secretary for Scotland moving this Amendment. I understood that the Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage was practically accepted by the overwhelming majority of the members of the Committee, and it seems to me to be a breach of faith on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to seek now to alter that part of the Bill which was agreed to by such an overwhelming majority upstairs and which was accepted by him.
§ Mr. MUNROI am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by an overwhelming majority. There was no Division, so far as I recollect, and I accepted the Amendment, but on reflection it turns out that it was not advisable.
§ Mr. ADAMSONIt was so obviously the will of the majority of the members of the Committee that the Secretary for Scotland accepted the Amendment. In his introductory remarks to-day the right hon. Gentleman did not give any reason for his change of mind, and I would like to know why this change has taken place. The Bill as it stands at the present moment without this Amendment puts the duty on education authorities of finding certain bursaries and fees for maintenance under certain conditions. If this Amendment is agreed to what is now the duty of educational authorities will not be carried out. I am sure this change of front will be a great disappointment to organised labour in Scotland, for they were more than pleased with the Amendment which stood in my name, and they will feel that their interests have been betrayed by the change that is proposed under this Amendment. So far as my personal atti- 168 tude is concerned I have no intention of agreeing to such a change, and I shall divide the House unless the Secretary for Scotland sees fit to withdraw his Amendment which I hope, on consideration, he will do.
§ Sir E. PARROTTAs the Member who moved the Amendment which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in Grand Committee, I should like to express my intense disappointment at his action to-day. It was evident that he repented very rapidly, for as I made my way home to Scotland I saw a report in the "Glasgow Herald" which announced that he proposed to make the change and which also gave some hint as to the argument to be used. It said that the Amendment which had been accepted made the Clause lopsided. It is a tailor-made argument, and I do not think that he would use it. I am sure that he has some very much better reason than that for witdrawing the Amendment. May I repeat what I said in Grand Committee and what he was good enough to accept as reasonable. The greatest work that we have to do when the War is over is to seek out and develop all the capacity that we can in this country. It would be next door to a crime if any capable boy or girl in any part of the land were prevented from rising to the full extent of his or her educational posibility because of the defection of some authority. The Glasgow School Board has accepted quite frankly the Clause as amended in Grand Committee, but it is quite possible that on the one side of an artificial boundary you might have an up-to-date authority fully cognisant of its duties and frankly and thoroughly arranging for the maintenance of its capable boys and girls and that on the other side of the boundary you might have a backward authority taking no steps whatever to find out what capacity it had among its children. By allowing this permissive Clause to be restored you are really putting the children of Scotland under a very grave disability indeed.
I am absolutely astounded that my right hon. Friend, whose educational zeal is beyond question, should permit himself to be guided—I am sure that he has been guided—by other people in the direction that I have indicated. At the last possible moment I would beseech the Committee to stand firm on this question. Its universities have been the glory of Scotland, but scores of thousands have not 169 been able to send their sons to those institutions because they have not had the means. You will give the backward authorities the opportunity of making this Clause of no effect whatever in their own localities. I earnestly hope that the Committee will insist on having the Clause as it passed Grand Committee. My right hon. Friend sets a very bad example to the whole of the Members of the Committee. What is to prevent me or anybody else from refusing to accept any of the findings of the Grand Committee and from putting down again every Amendment in order that we may have them discussed here in this House? My right hon. Friend has behind him a mechanical majority that voted a few minutes ago against Scottish Members being allowed to have their own education Department in their own capital, and, of course, he can carry this Amendment against us no matter what the arguments may be, but I must repeat that I am astounded at his action.
§ Mr. TENNANTI cannot help thinking that we are rather at cross purposes. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, the Bill would say that it "shall be lawful for an education authority to do as that authority thinks fit." Is it any use this House asserting that it "shall be the duty of any education authority to do as it thinks fit"? It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing in it.
§ Mr. CURRIEAs my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) knows, I was one of those who shared his views as to the desirability of allowances of this kind being given where necessary, but may I say, as one who voted with him in the Division which took place upstairs, that I think he was altogether in error in making a charge of bad faith against the right hon. Gentleman. May I draw his attention to the rubric of the Clause which stands "Power to facilitate attendance"? It is not an obligation to give in every case. Later on the language used is, "And it shall be lawful for an authority" to do so-and-so. The Secretary for Scotland stands quite discharged from altering the meaning and contents of the Clause. There is nothing in the alteration which he now suggests that clashes with any idea that was in my mind when I voted with the thirty-two Members in favour of the one set of words as against the other. I wish my right hon. Friend would withdraw the 170 charge which has unfortunately been made. I am sure that it has been made under a misapprehension, or, at all events, I am satisfied that it is quite unsubstantiated.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "so far as practicable."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI beg to move, after the word "child" ["that no child or young person resident in their education area"], to insert in the Bill the words "having attained the age of thirteen years."
This is one of a series of Amendments which have for their object the provision of maintenance grants for children over the age of thirteen attending any of our schools in Scotland. I am convinced that if the Scottish people are to get the full benefit of the provisions of this Bill some such arrangements as are provided for in these Amendments require to be made. Unless we have some such provision, the successful administration of the Bill will be endangered. I readily confess that the Bill is a great advance, but great as that advance is, it really does not go as far as the working classes in Scotland desire. For years they have been demanding a standard of education for their children higher than is provided for in this Bill. They want their children to have as easy a passage from the elementary school to the university as is at present enjoyed by the children of the wealthy classes. They recognise the importance of education to their children and to the nation. They fully recognise that unless we can provide the whole of the children of the nation with as high a standard of education as is possible we are not likely to hold our place among the nations of the world. Some very flattering speeches have been made as to the arrangements which have been provided by the Scottish people for the education of their children. The working classes desire even a higher standard of education than is contained in this Bill, but, at the same time, they realise that unless some arrangement is made in the form of maintenance grants for assisting them in securing that education they are not going to get the full benefit of the Bill.
171 The difficulty that stands in the way is an economic one. It is a difficulty that the Secretary for Scotland will find stands in the way of the successful administration of his Bill. I know that I may be met with the argument that the proper method for dealing with a difficulty of this kind is to raise the wages of the parents to a level that will enable them to provide the education for their children that is outlined in the Bill, but as one who has had considerable experience, extending over twenty or thirty years, I can assure the Members of this House that it is not such a very easy task to permanently raise the wages of the working classes to the extent that they would require to be raised in order to enable them to get the full benefit of the provisions of this Bill. I therefore very strongly urge upon the Secretary for Scotland to accept this Amendment and the whole series of Amendments dealing with this particular part of the Bill, and thereby make provision for meeting the economic difficulty of many of the working-class parents in Scotland. I can assure him that by doing so he will make provision for the successful administration of the Bill. On the other hand, unless he makes some such provision, he will endanger, in a serious degree, the successful administration of the measure. In conclusion, I would again personally appeal to him to give his serious and favourable consideration to the series of Amendments which stand in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) and myself, and which have for their object the provision of the necessary maintenance grants to enable the children of Scotland to get the full benefit of the Bill.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CURRIEI beg to second the Amendment. The question really is an economic one, and to that extent I admit it is not a purely educational matter. At the same time it stands to reason that if you raise the school age of children, and place upon them and on young persons the obligation to attend continuation classes, you put on a large number of working-class shoulders a heavy financial burden. If I were sure that the wage level obtaining at the present time would be stereotyped, I do not think I would support the Amendment, but I am not sure of anything of the sort. I think wages may fall, and in that case serious obstacles will arise which will cause trouble to the education authorities with the 172 working classes by reason of the pressure of inadequate wages. I should like to repeat a suggestion which I made in Commitee, one which I think provides a halfway house for the Secretary for Scotland, if he is inclined to sympathise with this proposal. It is that for a period of years following the introduction of the Bill—say, for seven years—power should be taken to pay these allowances, and that at the end of the seven years the whole question should come up for review, and if the level of wages then proves more satisfactory than it was ten years ago, the allowances might be dropped. In the meantime I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson) that in many working-class homes conditons will be such as to interfere with the successful working of the Act, and with the securing of these educational benefits for the young people I hope therefore some concession may be made by the Government.
§ Mr. CLYDEI am going to limit my remarks to the first of the series of Amendments—to the one immediately before the House. I cannot help thinking that almost everything said by the right hon. Gentleman who moved it, and the hon. Member who seconded it, had relevancy to questions arising out of the other Amendments.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI said so frankly; I said that this was one of a series of Amendments which had for their object the provision of a maintenance grant.
§ Mr. CLYDEAnd that is why I venture to say that what the right hon. Gentleman said was not relevant at all to the Amendment now before the House. What that Amendment proposes to do is to limit the power given under the Clause Whereas, as the Bill stands, the education authority has power to give assistance to any child in an intermediate or secondary school who promises to benefit by study, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment deliberately takes away from the education authority that power until the child has attained the age of thirteen years. Does my right hon. Friend mean to do that? If he does not, then I ask him to withdraw his Amendment and let us get to that part of his proposal which embodies his real meaning. The power given by the Bill is to grant assistance to a child who seems likely to benefit by being in an intermediate or secondary school. A child who is clever gets into the 173 intermediate school at the age of eleven or twelve. Children are expected to pass into the intermediate school between the ages of twelve and thirteen, but a great many do so when they are only eleven years of age, and if the right hon. Member's Amendment is carried it will take away from that child the opportunity of participating in the maintenance grant until it is thirteen years of age or over. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to do that, let him withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTMy right hon. Friend has somewhat ingeniously raised a point, but I do not think there is so much in it as he has endeavoured to suggest. He referred to this Amendment fixing the age at thirteen as a limiting Amendment. But he does not take into account the consequential Amendments which are on the Paper. May I call his attention to the fact that the Clause as it stands is a limiting Clause? There is a limit in it. This power of granting maintenance to children does not extend to all children. It only applies to those children who are qualified for attendance at intermediate or secondary schools. There is a very considerable limitation in that. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend aims at removing that limitation altogether and extending the power of making the maintenance grant for all children who have reached the age at which they would presumably be qualified for secondary or intermediate education. There can be no doubt that the age limit of thirteen is roughly the age limit for intermediate and secondary schools, but there may be children under that age who are attending these schools. My right hon. Friend ingeniously takes advantage of this fact to represent the Amendment as a drastic limitation of the Bill. As a matter of fact it is not a limitation. It is an extension of the provisions of the Bill, and we very much prefer it to the limitation in the Clause as it stands. We want the power to apply to all children capable of benefiting further by education, whether in intermediate or secondary or the ordinary schools.
§ Mr. FALCONERDoes the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment contend that the maintenance grant which he is advocating should be limited to children over thirteen years of age? Is it his intention in the series of Amendments which he has on the Paper to limit the grant in that way? I agree entirely with 174 the view put forward by the Lord Advocate that this first Amendment would have the effect of limiting the grant to children over thirteen.
§ Mr. ADAMSONMy intention is to provide maintenance grants for all children over the age of thirteen attending any school in Scotland, and not to limit it in the way suggested in the Clause.
§ Mr. FALCONERIf a child is under the age of thirteen and yet is capable of taking advantage of secondary or intermediate education, will it be excluded from the maintenance grant? I think the Lord Advocate is entirely right in saying that the effect of this Amendment will be to ensure that no child under thirteen years of age will get the maintenance grant.
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI beg to move to leave out the words "is qualified for attendance at an intermediate or secondary school, and."
The limitation in the Bill at present is that the grant is only to be extended to children who are qualified for attendance at intermediate or secondary schools. We desire to have the power extended to all children. My right hon. Friend has shown a great deal of sympathy in favour of making the provisions of the Bill as wide as possible, and I hope therefore he will accept this Amendment. I hope this Amendment will have the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance, for it is really designed to secure the end to which he professes to be quite favourable.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI beg to second the Amendment. It practically covers every ground of the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilkie) and myself. I have already put my case on the broad general issue that this and other Amendments standing in my name raise, and I have no intention of repeating myself, but express the hope that the Secretary for Scotland will agree to the principle that is contained in this series of Amendments.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERThis series of Amendments greatly widens the Clause, and the House should hesitate before accepting them. Why should public money be spent in all cases where it is desired that a child should go to an intermediate, secondary, or other school if it be not qualified or has no particular ability for further education? The right 175 hon. Member simply wants the grant to go on, and surely that is going to be a most expensive business. A large sum of public money would be required, and it is quite wrong that public money should be spent on every child without reference to its ability to benefit.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERBut if you leave out the qualification as to attendance at an immediate or secondary school you obviously widen the scope of the Clause, notwithstanding the words to which my hon. Friend refers.
§ Mr. CURRIEI think a proposal of this kind should not be passed without consideration of the fullest kind, and it should be discussed on its merits. Let us consider what kind of child is likely to be benefited by further training. In my view I do not think it is at all clear, and it should not be taken for granted that the only children who should benefit are those who have passed an examination when quite young. It is further training and discipline which is important, and I go so far as to say that it may be well that a child who may have been very bright from the point of view of the schoolmaster should obtain prolonged training, but it is not wholly or solely to do good to the clever child, who is really able to take care of himself, that we propose this legislation. There is many a child not particularly bright, and whose parents may be poor, that with more training and discipline could be made a better citizen, and it is on that ground I support this proposal. So far as I am concerned, I think the matter should be carried to a Division, for I should like to know the Members of the House who really grudge the money. It is quite true that large sums of money will be spent under the Bill, but I think that it is high time in Scotland that a great deal more money should be spent on education.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSAn English Member should apologise perhaps for speaking on a Scottish Bill, but I think I am entitled to ask for some information. I do not understand what the difference between between these two phrases in the Clause is. The Clause says, "Who is qualified for attendance at intermediate or secondary schools," and then it says, later on, "Who shows promise of profiting thereby." It seems to me that is practically a 176 repetition. If a child is qualified to attend an intermediate or secondary school, that is to say, if he has sufficient knowledge of elementary work he can go to an intermediate or secondary school, and he must show promise of profiting thereby, and if he shows promise that implies, as a matter of course, that he must have the necessary elementary knowledge, because, if he has not the necessary elementary knowledge it would be a waste of the child's and everybody else's time for him to be there. I should like to have it made clear what is the difference between these two phrases, and what is intended to be covered.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI might explain, for the information of the hon. Member, that this is one of a series of Amendments that seek to provide maintenance grants for children attending any school.
§ Sir W. BEALEIf the first of the two phrases were absent it would leave the Clause absolute nonsense. The Clause applies to a child who is qualified for attendance at an intermediate or secondary school. It is proposed to take those words out. What does "thereby" mean if you take those words out "if it shows promise of profiting thereby." The words, it seems to me, are the governing words that it is proposed by this Amendment to leave out, namely, "qualified for attendance at an intermediate or secondary school," and the omission of those words would leave the Clause without meaning.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThe hon. Member below the Gangway apparently knows little of school arrangements, and in reply to what he has said I would observe that no Scotsman grudges payment for any child who would benefit under this Bill. But if you put a child to a school for which he is not qualified you are inflicting heavy expenditure on the country, and you are wasting time that can never be made up; you are wasting time at the most important period of the child's life, time which can never be overtaken. If the hon. Member knew something of school arrangements he would see that one of the important points is to get the elementary schools to do their proper work, and the secondary schools to continue that work where the child is qualified. Suitability of the child is not fixed by any examination, but mainly by the opinion of the teachers, who are to judge when suitable boys should pass from the elementary into the intermediate or secondary school, and 177 whether they would benefit by that. If a child is sent to a secondary school before it is qualified you not only waste its time but you are introducing an element of disturbance in the school, because it interferes with the whole of the conditions of that school. It is not a question of grudging money for this educational work, as my hon. Friend suggests; the question is whether a child is qualified or not for further training at the intermediate or secondary school, and I earnestly hope that the Secretary for Scotland will not assent to the omission of words of such importance from the educational point of view.
§ Mr. MUNROThe answer to the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed I think has already been given, but perhaps it is only respectful to the House and to my right hon. Friend that I should say a word or two upon this series of Amendments and upon the general argument So far as this Amendment is concerned, I think the House will be well advised in not supporting the omission of these words, for it would be a serious matter if they disappeared from the Bill. I do not think any case has been made out for their disappearance. My hon. Friend is not pressing this Amendment on its merits; he is merely pressing it with one object in view, and that object is to make a maintenance grant mandatory in the case of every child from thirteen attending any school—primary, intermediate, or secondary. That is the purpose underlying this and every other Amendment on this Clause to which his name appears.
§ Mr. ADAMSONHear, hear!
§ Mr. MUNROThe proposal is not anew one. It was made upstairs, and my right hon. Friend will not disagree with my recollection if I say that he received the very scantiest support for it. My right hon. Friend not only endeavoured to persuade me in the interval that he is right and I am wrong, but he came with a deputation to Edinburgh and urged everything that could be urged, and I undertook to give the matter careful consideration. I have reconsidered the matter before the Report stage, and I really cannot reach any other result than the result which I reached upstairs, and which my right hon. Friend sitting beside me reached upon a similar discussion when it took place on the English Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, I think, took part in that discussion. I will not go through all the arguments pro and con. The whole matter was threshed out on the floor of this House. I am very anxious to get on with the Bill, and I do not think I should occupy time by going through all the arguments on this occasion. I cannot, for the reasons I stated upstairs, see my way to accept the general Amendment of this Clause which my hon. Friend has in view, and perhaps it will be better to take a Division on this Amendment in order that the other Amendments may be regarded by him as consequential if defeated on this. Accordingly. I make that suggestion to my right hon. Friend with all respect. I regret that I am unable to accept the proposals he has in his mind.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 63.
179| Division No. 82.] | AYES. | [7.29 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Anderson, G. K. | Collins, Sir W. (Derby) | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. |
| Archdale, Lieut. E. M. | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hinds, John |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. | Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Elverston, Sir Harold | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Boyton, Sir James | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Layland-Barratt, Sir F. |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Fletcher, John Samuel | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Gardner, Ernest | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gibbs, Col, George Abraham | M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John | MacCaw, William G. MacGeagh |
| Carew, C. R. S. | Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Alfred | Mackinder, H. J. |
| Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Macleod, John Mackintosh |
| Cator, John | Gretton, John | Macmaster, Donald |
| Cheyne, Sir W. W. | Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. Geo. H. (Norwich) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. | Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Nield, Sir Herbert | Royds, Major Edmund | Wardle, George J. |
| Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H. | Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.) | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Shortt, Edward | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Spear, Sir John Ward | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n) | Stewart, Gershom | Williams Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Perkins, Walter F. | Stoker, R. B. | Younger, Sir George |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | |
| Pratt, J. W. | Swift, Rigby | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Randles, Sir John S. | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John | Captain Guest and Col. Sanders. |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Anderson, W. C. | Hogge, James Myles | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Boland, John Plus | Hudson, Walter | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | John, Edward Thomas | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Jowett, Frederick William | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Keating, Matthew | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Buxton, Noel | Kenyon, Barnet | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | King, Joseph | Sheehy, David |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Clough, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lundon, Thomas | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Crumley, Patrick | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Sutton, John E. |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk, B'ghs) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Doris, William | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Tootill, Robert |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | McGhee, Richard | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Falconer, James | Mooney, John J. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Finney, Samuel | Morrell, Philip | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Muldoon, John | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Harbison, T. J. S. | Nolan, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nugent, J. D. (College Green) | |
| Hazleton, Richard | Outhwaite, R. L. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Parrott, Sir James Edward | Mr. Currie and Mr. Adamson. |
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, to leave out the words "in their opinion" ["and in their opinion shows promise"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in the opinion of the teachers who have taught the child or young person during the preceding six months."
I think the education authority is not a good judge of whether the child to whom it is going to extend benefits shows promise of profiting by them. It is bound to take the opinion of those who are in closer touch with the child or children, and the individuals whom it will consult are in all probability the teachers. If the power is left in the hands of the education authority it will lead to wire-pulling, and children who would not show promise will get those pecuniary advantages which are held out in this Clause. I therefore think the education authority, which cannot satisfactorily deal with the question of promise or no promise, should not have the say as to whether these financial advantages are to be given to the child or young person. That opinion should come from the teachers, who are the best judges of whether promise is shown or not.
§ Amendment not seconded.
180§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, after the word "opinion" ["and in their opinion shows promise"], to insert in the Bill the words "formed after consideration of a report from the teachers concerned."
I think this covers the point my hon. Friend had in mind. It is put on the Paper in virtue of a promise I gave in Committee to consider words which would make it plain that the education authority, before deciding whether an applicant for assistance under this Clause shows promise of profiting by attendance at a secondary school, should consult the teacher or teachers who are familiar with the work of the child. I gave that undertaking, and have put the Amendment on the Paper. I think it is a better form than that which my hon. Friend has moved and which was not seconded. There might be practical difficulties in working out the Amendment which he moved. For example, two teachers might differ in opinion, in which case there would be a deadlock. But apart from that, I do not think this determination should be made upon the ipse dixit of any teacher. I quite agree that the education authority, which is responsible for spending public money, ought to have and will have the assistance 181 and benefit of the views of the teacher before reaching a conclusion, but I think the judgment ought to be that of the responsible public authority. In order to secure both these results, first that the public authority shall make the judgment and secondly that it shall be made after due communication with, and on a report from the teacher who knows the facts in regard to the child, this Amendment is put on the Paper.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, to leave out the words, "in lieu of such cost" ["or of a bursary or maintenance allowance in lieu of such costs"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "or any combination of these forms of assistance."
The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the education authority, in giving assistance towards secondary education, is not restricted to any one of the methods which are specified in the Clause but that on the other hand they may employ any combination of these methods.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, after the word "person" ["to assist any duly qualified person"], to insert in the Bill the words, "who shows promise of profiting thereby and who is."
I desire to insert in the second part of the Clause, which deals with persons going to training colleges, universities, or central institutions, the qualification which is in the earlier part, dealing with children and young persons, that they shall show promise of profiting by the proposed advantages.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. MUNROI venture to suggest that this Amendment is really unnecessary, because you are here dealing with a young person who has reached the age for entering a university. If he passes the qualifying examination for entrance to a university I think there can be no doubt that he is a person who shows promise of profiting by the university instruction which he receives. Therefore, I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the insertion of these words would be tautological and unnecessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.